On 26/05/16 19:49 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25/05/16 14:54 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23/05/16 20:39 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
Ping
(re-attaching, I just added a one-line comment before the tag
class as asked by Ville)
This is OK for tr
On Thu, 26 May 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25/05/16 14:54 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23/05/16 20:39 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
Ping
(re-attaching, I just added a one-line comment before the tag class as
asked by Ville)
This is OK for trunk - thanks.
On second thoughts - does thi
On 25/05/16 14:54 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23/05/16 20:39 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
Ping
(re-attaching, I just added a one-line comment before the tag class
as asked by Ville)
This is OK for trunk - thanks.
On second thoughts - does this change the passing conventions for
std::tupl
On 23/05/16 20:39 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
Ping
(re-attaching, I just added a one-line comment before the tag class as
asked by Ville)
This is OK for trunk - thanks.
Ping
(re-attaching, I just added a one-line comment before the tag class as
asked by Ville)
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20 April 2016 at 21:42, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
does anyone remember why the move constructor of _Tuple_imp
On 7 May 2016 at 00:39, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Assuming we want the copy constructor to be defaulted, I think we still
> could with concepts:
>
> tuple(tuple const&)
> requires(__and_...>::value)
> = default;
>
> While there is precedent for enabling C++11 features in C++03 mode inside
> system head
On Fri, 6 May 2016, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On 6 May 2016 at 20:51, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hi Ville,
since you wrote the latest patches on tuple constructors, do you have an
opinion on this patch, or alternate strategies to achieve the same goal?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2016-04/msg0004
On 6 May 2016 at 20:51, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hi Ville,
>
> since you wrote the latest patches on tuple constructors, do you have an
> opinion on this patch, or alternate strategies to achieve the same goal?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2016-04/msg00041.html
I have fairly mixed feelings ab
Hi Ville,
since you wrote the latest patches on tuple constructors, do you have an
opinion on this patch, or alternate strategies to achieve the same goal?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2016-04/msg00041.html
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Jonathan Wakely wr
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20 April 2016 at 21:42, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
does anyone remember why the move constructor of _Tuple_impl is not
defaulted? The attached patch does not cause any test to fail (whitespace
kept to avoid line number changes). Maybe something abo
10 matches
Mail list logo
